The university moved swiftly to recover. Mr. Nikias succeeded Steven B. Sample as president that same year and began building the school into a fund-raising powerhouse. For the last several years, it has been one of the top universities in annual fund-raising, along with Harvard and Stanford, raising $6 billion in a recent campaign.
Mr. Nikias used the N.C.A.A. sanctions as the impetus to clean house — firing the athletic director, Mike Garrett, himself a former Heisman Trophy winner. Mr. Nikias also beefed up the rules compliance office, hiring a prominent Los Angeles lawyer, and soon had a nine-person staff.
“We’re going to have a culture of compliance,” Pat Haden, the replacement U.S.C. athletic director, told The New York Times at the time. “We’re going to think about it in the morning, think about it before we go to bed. We’re going to have issues but we’ll fess up and be better than the way before.”
As part of the restructuring, one administrator was soon thrust into a more prominent role — Ms. Heinel, a former college swimmer.
Ms. Heinel now stands accused of collecting more than $1.3 million in payments directed from parents through Mr. Singer between 2014 and 2018, and drawing $20,000 per month from Mr. Singer since last July through a sham consultant agreement.
Ms. Heinel, who came to U.S.C. in 2003, was fired Tuesday along with Jovan Vavic, the hugely successful water polo coach who was charged in the current affidavit with accepting $250,000 from Mr. Singer. Two former U.S.C. soccer coaches — Ali Khosroshahin and his assistant, Laura Janke — have been charged with taking $350,000 from Mr. Singer. So, too, has Bill Ferguson, the Wake Forest women’s volleyball coach, who led the men’s team at U.S.C. for a decade before leaving in 2016. He is accused of accepting $100,000 from Mr. Singer.
The recent scandals haven’t appeared to dim the university’s powerful lure for prospective students. This year, U.S.C. received close to 66,000 applicants, its largest pool ever, with the highest collective grade point averages and SAT scores ever recorded.
One of former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s supporters from his 2018 Senate campaign has been reaching out to top Democratic Party donors to see if they will back him to run for president in 2020.
Louis Susman, former U.S. ambassador to the U.K. and a lead bundler for Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, has been speaking with political financiers from across the country, including those in the financial industry, to see if they will invest in O’Rourke’s campaign, according to people with direct knowledge of the outreach.
The former Obama backer has put together a string of senior party donors who are willing to contribute to the former congressman’s presidential operation, said the people, who declined to be named due to the conversations being deemed private.
In an interview with CNBC, Susman says the people he’s talked to about donating to the campaign are “family and friends.” He added “everyone is excited to go,” while noting he’s been in touch with O’Rourke’s campaign and coordinating his efforts with them. He declined to say who these donors are or which industry they are from.
“Whatever I do, I do it in coordination with the campaign,” Susman said. He said there’s no discussion about him becoming a campaign finance chairman and he has not recently spoken with O’Rourke himself. He’s confident the former Texas Senate candidate will be successful in the fundraising circuit.
“I don’t think, whether it’s through large bundlers or small donors, that he’s going to have a tough time raising money,” Susman said.
He also did not rule out holding fundraisers for O’Rourke, noting “everything is in the planning stages.”
“The team is focused on these four days in Iowa, and everything is going to develop from there,” he added and then abruptly ended the phone call.
CNN first reported in December that Louis Susman was planning to support O’Rourke’s candidacy if he ran for president.
A spokesman for O’Rourke did not return repeated requests for comment.
O’Rourke officially launched his campaign for president on Thursday and declared he would be following the same pledge he made when he ran for a Senate seat from Texas in 2018: He will not accept contributions from political action committees, corporations or any special interests. He did not rule out receiving the backing of wealthy financiers like Susman, who currently is a senior advisor to behemoth asset management firm Perella Weinberg Partners and investment firm Atlas Merchant Capital.
Susman was a contributor to O’Rourke’s failed Senate bid, in which he lost to Ted Cruz by just under 2 percentage points. He wrote a $2,700 check to O’Rourke’s campaign in March 2018. O’Rourke finished the 2018 election cycle raising $80 million with almost half of the contributions coming from supporters who gave $200 or less.
For O’Rourke, having Susman on his side could prove to be a difference maker, especially in appealing to donors who are willing to write the larger checks.
“Here’s what Beto doesn’t know: if the contributions he got in Texas will translate into a presidential race. He doesn’t know that,” said a Democratic donor who’s heard Susman’s pitch for backing O’Rourke. “He can’t just rely on that if he really wants to win,” this source added.
Before becoming Obama’s ambassador, Susman bundled at least $500,000 during Obama’s first run for president in 2008, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. He was also the national finance chairman for John Kerry’s 2004 bid for president.
In the buildup to his announcement, O’Rourke himself had been actively speaking with donors, including some in New York.
Robert Wolf, a longtime party donor and a veteran on Wall Street, spoke with O’Rourke on Wednesday afternoon, he confirmed to CNBC. Wolf would not comment on whether he will support him in the 2020 election but said he was impressed by his initial presidential campaign rollout. O’Rourke had a “great positive message and very smart retail-style politics, where he launches locally in an Iowa coffee shop shaking hands and taking questions.”
O’Rourke made his first campaign stop in the early caucus state of Iowa and traveled to the town of Keokuk to meet with voters at a local coffee shop.
Robert Zimmerman, another lead party bundler and donor, who has yet to hear from O’Rourke, said he considers him a viable candidate to compete for the Democratic nomination. Zimmerman said O’Rourke’s small-dollar donor base, which he put together when he ran for the Senate, will be a formidable hurdle for anyone competing against him.
“I think he’s a top-tier candidate. Very few candidates have shown the ability to build a donor base among young people, campaign in coffee shops around the country and also make the cover of Vanity Fair,” Zimmerman said.
A ramshackle compound in the desert area of Amalia, N.M. Five former residents were indicted on terror and gun charges.
Brian Skoloff/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Brian Skoloff/AP
A ramshackle compound in the desert area of Amalia, N.M. Five former residents were indicted on terror and gun charges.
Brian Skoloff/AP
Updated at 9:40 p.m. ET
A federal grand jury in Albuquerque has indicted five residents of a rural New Mexico compound on new terror-related charges connected to an alleged conspiracy to attack FBI and military personnel.
The five defendants were arrested last year after authorities found 11 malnourished children living in squalor in the small community of Amalia, near the New Mexico-Colorado border. They also discovered a large cache of weapons, leading to charges of conspiracy and illegal possession of firearms.
The superseding indictment announced Thursday charges Jany Leveille, 36; Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, 40; Hujrah Wahhaj, 38; Subhanah Wahhaj, 36; and Lucas Morton, 41; with a conspiracy to provide material support for terrorist attacks on federal officers and employees.
“The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to provide material support in preparation for violent attacks against federal law enforcement officers and members of the military,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers in a statement. “Advancing beliefs through terror and violence has no place in America, and the National Security Division continues to make protecting against terrorism its top priority.”
Attorneys for the defendants withheld comment, saying that they are waiting for more information from the government.
“We still don’t have all the documents from the government regarding this case,” said Amy Sirignano, who represents Morton, as quoted by the Associated Press.
Sirignano said in an email sent to the AP on behalf of the defense that their clients would plead not guilty when they are arraigned next week.
Four of the compound residents also are charged with kidnapping a child who later died. The remains of a small child were discovered three days after the initial raid. The boy, three-year-old Abdul-Ghani Wahhaj, was the son of defendant Siraj Ib Wahaj and had been reported missing from his home in Georgia since December 2017. The search for the child led the FBI to begin monitoring the group and to the eventual raid.
New Mexico state child abuse charges were dismissed last year when prosecutors mishandled the case.
“Federal prosecutors say that between Dec. 2017 and August 2018, the group, who are either siblings or related by marriage, had ‘a common plan to prepare for violent attacks on government, military, educational and financial institutions,'” NPR’s Vanessa Romo reported in September 2018.
The Justice Department statement laid out the allegations related to preparations for attacks against federal officers and employees:
“According to the superseding indictment, Siraj Ibn Wahhaj and Hujrah Wahhaj gathered firearms and ammunition, and all of the defendants transported people, firearms, and ammunition across state lines and constructed a training compound where they stored firearms and ammunition. The superseding indictment further alleges that Siraj Ibn Wahhaj and Morton constructed and maintained a firing range at the compound where they engaged in firearms and tactical training for other compound occupants, and that Leveille and Morton attempted to recruit others to their cause.
“The superseding indictment also charges Leveille, Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, and Morton with conspiring to attack and kill officers and employees of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1117. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that the defendants would kill officers and employees of the United States, specifically, Federal Bureau of Investigation employees, government officials, and military personnel.”
A gunman appears to have live-streamed the attack. The video, filmed from a first-person view and viewed by a HuffPost editor, begins with a man saying, “Let’s get this party started.” He then drives for nearly six minutes before leaving his car. The shooter enters what appears to be a mosque and fires at a large number of people, sometimes at close range. After about six minutes, he begins driving to another location. “There wasn’t even time to aim, there were so many targets,” he says.
He told 1 NEWS he was with players, as they were about to enter the mosque, and a lady came out telling them not to enter, so the team ran out and escaped.
It’s been a weird few weeks for Tesla. Stores opened and stores closed, a $35,000 Model 3 appeared, the SEC asked a federal judge to charge CEO Elon Musk with contempt of court. But drown it all out, folks, because tonight is about that old school Musk magic. Expect him to walk onstage around 8 pm PDT to unveil Tesla’s latest, greatest offering, the Model Y, its first baby SUV.
If the Model 3 was the EV for the masses, the Model Y is the EV for the masses that the masses really want. The US loves big cars: SUV and crossover sales are currently up 13 percent year-over-year, and just short of half of all light vehicles sold in 2018 slot neatly into those categories. And Tesla certainly believes it has a hit on its hands. “The demand for Model Y will be maybe 50 percent higher than Model 3. Could be even double,” Musk said during a January earnings call.
As the hour of the unveil draws near, though, we have plenty of questions. Musk told investors that the Model Y would share about 75 percent of its part with the Model 3—but how different will it look? How much will it cost? Will it have gullwing doors like its more expensive predecessor, the Model X? How about a third row of seats? When will it be available? And how does Tesla—the company that went through “production hell” to create the Model 3—intend to pull it all off?
Tune in with us as we watch the show go down, and check back below for our latest, live updates.
9:00 pm PDT
And we’re done! Elon seemed to have a lot of fun with the audience during this unveil, cracking lots of jokes and giggling at the outbursts from (adoring) hecklers. But the whole thing was pretty short—just about 30 minutes—and the Tesla CEO spent most of his time reviewing how far his little-electric-vehicle-company-that-could had come. We have so many more questions! Stay tuned to wired.com for what we know so far about the Model Y.
8:57 pm PDT
A big surprise: The Model Y will have seven seats! But it won’t have gullwing doors. Here’s my big question: What becomes of the Model X now?
8:55 pm PDT
And we have some pricing information! Tesla says the Performance Model Y will show up in fall 2020, with a 280 mile range, a 150 mph top speed, a 0 to 60 time of 3.5 seconds, and a $60,000 price tag. The Dual Motor AWD is also slated for fall 2020, with a 280 mile range, a 135 mph top speed, a 0 to 60 sprint of 4.8 seconds, and a $51,000 price tag. Next up in fall 2020: the Long Range Model Y, topping out at 300 miles of range, for $47,000. Finally: The standard range Model Y is set to be released in spring 2021 with a 230 mile range, for a cool $39,000.
8:50 pm PDT
At last, it’s here! Dressed in blue, the Model Y comes on stage. It’s a bit bigger than the Model 3, with a higher roof and a third row, so it seats seven. Musk starts off talking about safety, and a bit on performance, saying it’ll be as functional as an SUV, but as fun to drive as a sports car. The big battery pack in the floor helps keep the center of gravity low, and the motor will provide a 3.5 second 0 to 60 mph time. Range: 300 miles.
8:48 pm PDT
We’ve got an update on Tesla infrastructure: 1,400 supercharger stations and 12,000+ superchargers in 36+ countries. The Canadians in the audience express discontent, and quoth Elon: “I’ve specifically asked about a Saskatchewan supercharger and I’m told it’s under construction.” (Musk’s grandfather is from the Canadian province.) He also promises a station in Kazakhstan, great news for Kazakh Tesla owners. And it feels like he’s about run out of things to say that aren’t about the Model Y. We hope…
8:45 pm PDT
Elon is on to the factory portion of his presentation, talking the Nevada Gigafactory and the one in production in Shanghai, which he says should be finished by the end of the year. I would not call this a “tight five”, but the audience seems to be eating this up.
8:30 pm PDT
Play the hits, Musk: the Roadster, the Model S, the Model X, the Model 3. (Elon confirms that “S” stands for “sedan”, not “saloon”.) The company’s tale, according to Elon, is a lot of “They couldn’t say we could do it…and then we did!” Which, fair enough! He notes that he would have called the Model 3 the Model E—to spell S-E-X—but that Ford holds the “Model E” trademark. “Ford killed sex.”
8:25 pm PDT
Tesla CEO Elon Musk is onstage—black shirt, black jacket, black pants, custom Tesla-branded Nike sneakers—and is starting off talking history. “There was a time when electric cars seemed very stupid,” he says. He’s rolling out past Tesla models, starting with the Roadster. “It’s a bit small,” he says. Next we’ll see the Model S sedan, Model X SUV, and Model 3 sedan.
8:22 pm PDT
It’s beginning! Discover how to tune in right here.
8:00 pm PDT
We’ve reached official show time, but like any rock star, Elon Musk tends to take the stage a little bit late. In the meantime, we’ll remind you that the Model Y is not just an overall big deal for Tesla, it completes something of a quartet, so Tesla’s current lineup includes the Model S, Model X, and Model 3. Get it? S3XY. (Ford holds the trademark to “Model E”.)
Republicans who spent the Obama administration warning about the expansion of executive power on Thursday made fools of themselves by overwhelmingly backing President Trump’s emergency declaration in the name of building a border wall. In the process, they did long-term damage to the conservative cause.
To be sure, the Senate voted 59-41 to disapprove of Trump’s declaration, and 12 Republicans took a principled stand. That Trump’s action was given the thumbs down by majorities in both chambers of Congress could bolster court cases challenging Trump’s executive action.
But the measure will now be vetoed by Trump, and there aren’t enough votes to overturn his veto, so he’ll be able to move forward, pending litigation.
What’s pathetic is that the overwhelming majority of Republicans signed off on the move. While consistent constitutional conservatives including Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul held firm, other conservatives who often warn about the erosion of checks on executive power, prominently Sens. Ted Cruz and Ben Sasse, caved. Thom Tillis, who actually wrote an op-ed outlining why he would vote against the measure, changed his mind when it came to vote.
In explaining away his decision, Sasse said: “We have an obvious crisis at the border everyone who takes an honest look at the spiking drug and human trafficking numbers knows this and the President has a legal path to a rapid response under the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (NEA). I think that law is overly broad and I want to fix it, but at present Nancy Pelosi doesn’t, so I am therefore voting against her politically motivated resolution. As a constitutional conservative, I believe that the NEA currently on the books should be narrowed considerably. That’s why I’m an original sponsor of Senator Lee’s legislation, and it is why I have repeatedly gone to the White House to seek support for NEA reform.”
This is a cop-out. Nothing in the world would prevent Sasse from both voting to disapprove of this specific invocation of emergency powers while also advocating for broader reforms. He is setting up a classic false choice. Sasse has in the past lamented the tendency of people to put their preferred outcomes over respecting process and institutional checks on power, and yet here he is, embracing a move because of the policy outcome.
Even if you think Trump’s actions are legal (which is debatable), it still would represent a novel use of emergency powers to advance a domestic priority after the president was repeatedly and explicitly denied it by Congress. Senators who argue against arbitrary rule shouldn’t endorse the idea of stretching the boundaries in the direction of expanding power of the executive. In the long run, the only people who will lose are those who want to limit the size and scope of government.
As I noted before, it’s quite likely that the legal process over the emergency will spill into next year and that it won’t be resolved in time to actually build a wall before the 2020 election. So in the end, Trump and those Republicans who embraced him may have just helped expand executive powers just in time for a Democratic president to use them, without even having a border wall to show for it.
Last week, John Brennan, the former CIA director turned Trump-bashing talking head, predicted a final flurry of indictments from Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller. The big day, Brennan said, would be Friday, March 8.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if, for example, this week on Friday — not knowing anything about it— but Friday is the day the grand jury indictments come down. And this Friday is better than next Friday, because next Friday is the 15th of March, which is the ides of March,” Brennan told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. “And I don’t think Robert Mueller will want to have that dramatic flair of the ides of March when he is going to be delivering what I think are going to be are his indictments — the final indictments — as well the report.”
March 8 came and went without new Mueller indictments, or at least new public indictments. And now comes news that Mueller’s top deputy, Andrew Weissmann — also known as the special counsel’s “legal pit bull” — will leave the office within the next few days.
Also, the FBI recently announced that Mueller’s top investigator, David Archey, has left Mueller to take a top job with the bureau in Richmond, Va.
The departure of not one but two of Mueller’s key staff — along with other aides who have moved on in recent weeks — fueled speculation that the special counsel is wrapping up his investigation. “[Weissmann’s] departure is the strongest sign yet that Mueller and his team have all but concluded their work,” said NPR, which first reported the news.
As always, it is dangerous to predict what Mueller will or will not do, but what are the chances that Mueller’s key people are leaving while he is preparing big, new prosecutions?
“Slim and none,” said former Whitewater prosecutor Sol Wisenberg in a text exchange Thursday. Wisenberg has said for some weeks now that it does not appear Mueller is planning anything new. And now comes the news about Weissmann and Archey.
“The two leaving contemporaneously adds to my pre-existing views on this based on the course of events,” Wisenberg said. “If you were in their position and those big indictments were coming down, why wouldn’t you stay?”
If in fact Mueller plans no more charges, the investigation would leave some key figures in the Trump-Russia affair unindicted. Besides the president himself, the two biggest are Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, the president’s son and son-in-law. But the bigger picture will be that the figures Mueller did charge — Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, and others — were not charged with taking part in a conspiracy with Russia to fix the 2016 election.
Indeed, so far, Mueller, in all his so-called “speaking indictments,” has not alleged that such a conspiracy existed. He has charged a lot of Russians with trying to interfere with the election, but he has not accused anyone on the Trump side of working with those or other Russians in the effort.
Had there been such a conspiracy, it seems reasonable to assume that the people Mueller charged — Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Cohen, Stone — would have been part of it, or at least would have known about it. Yet Mueller investigated and charged them all with crimes that were unrelated to the election or with lying to investigators. The special counsel has not alleged that any took part in an election conspiracy.
What seems most likely now is that Mueller will tell what he knows in a report to the attorney general. That report will almost certainly make its way to the public — on Thursday, the House voted nearly unanimously to urge its release — so Americans will finally know what Mueller discovered. Perhaps it will be a scathing assessment of what happened, a sort of nonindictment indictment of the Trump campaign. Or perhaps it will be something less.
In any event, if there are no further indictments, that will undoubtedly be a disappointment to those in the Resistance and Never Trump worlds who hoped to see people close to the president face charges.
It’s always important to be modest about knowing Mueller’s plans. He has surprised observers before. He might still now. But the departures of key investigators suggest that probe is reaching its end.
Then the controllers observed the plane going up and down by hundreds of feet, and it appeared to be moving unusually fast, the person said. The controllers, the person said, “started wondering out loud what the flight was doing.”
Two other Ethiopian flights, 613 and 629, were approaching from the east, and the controllers, sensing an emergency on Flight 302, ordered them to remain at higher altitudes. It was during that exchange with the other planes, the person said, that Captain Getachew, with panic in his voice, interrupted with his request to turn back.
Flight 302 was just three minutes into its flight, the person said, and appeared to have accelerated to even higher speeds, well beyond its safety limits.
There’s one real star of the Vanity Fair profile of Beto O’Rourke, and it’s not the Texas politician.
The failed Senate candidate announced he’s running for president Thursday morning, and just in time, the magazine profiled him in a glowing cover story.
Luckily, the piece does acknowledge his drunk driving arrest, which other media outlets have conveniently overlooked in the past, but that doesn’t make it levelheaded. Near the end of the piece, the author writes:
The politician with a crony capitalist background is certainly not too decent for the White House, but he has a dog who is.
The real star of the story is O’Rourke’s dog Artemis, who doesn’t even get a mention in the 8,000-word profile but who had plenty of photos taken by Annie Leibovitz.
Getting the legendary portrait photographer to capture O’Rourke may have been a little bit much, but Leibovitz’s talents were necessary to capture this pooch. She — since the dog is named after the goddess of the hunt, I’m guessing it’s a she — is looking at the ground while O’Rourke plays music with his kids. She’s looking off into the middle distance with the family at Franklin Mountains State Park. And as O’Rourke and his son sit on the couch, she’s staring right into the camera, and also into the soul of America.
O’Rourke said this next election is the “fight of our lives” and he’s “born to be in it.” But, despite polling among the top 2020 contenders since his Senate loss last fall, he’s shown little evidence he has what it takes. If charisma and Twitter fawning are all it takes to win the presidency, Artemis may as well run instead.
The UK Parliament has voted to postpone the Brexit deadline — but it’s now up to the European Union to agree to an extension.
Prime Minister Theresa May put forward a measure Thursday that sought to delay the UK’s exit from the EU beyond the current March 29 deadline. Parliament voted 412 to 202 in favor.
But a “Brextension” is not guaranteed — and could be complicated.
May has said that she would ask the EU for “a short limited technical extension,” until June 30, if Parliament approved her Brexit deal on March 20. This means she would try to pass her plan a third time. If her deal were to pass, the delay would simply provide the UK Parliament more time to pass the legislation to put the Brexit deal into law.
But, May warned, if Parliament doesn’t want to accept her deal a third time and doesn’t want to leave without a plan in place, then it’s possible any delay will have to be a long one, beyond the end of June.
May’s ultimatum appeared to be a last-minute threat to hardline Brexiteers — those members of Parliament (MPs) who keep voting down her deal but also want a decisive break with the EU. She’s basically warning them to get behind her plan or risk giving Parliament more time to figure out something else that will be far less desirable to them — like a softer Brexit, or a second referendum vote.
Ultimately, it’s up to the European Union to decide whether to grant any kind of extension. All 27 member states have to unanimously approve a delay, and they are almost certainly going to ask the UK: What is a delay good for?
The UK says it wants more time. But it’s really up to the EU.
The EU doesn’t want the blame for the potential fallout of a no-deal Brexit on March 29, but it has said a reason for an extension can’t be more negotiations over May’s deal. What might meet the EU’s threshold, though, is a postponement that wouldallow the UK to better prepare for a no-deal Brexit, a technical delay to implement the Brexit deal if it’s approved on a third vote, or a dramatic shift in UK politics, such as a second referendum or general elections.
Both May and the EU have said any delay that lasts more than a few months will require the UK to participate in the European parliamentary elections, from May 23 to 26. (The new members of European Parliament take their seats at the beginning of July, so that’s how May came up with the June 30 date.) Both the UK and EU would almost certainly like to avoid this scenario, but a major political shake-up like a referendum or elections will almost certainly take more than a few months to plan and coordinate.
Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, seems to be the one EU leader who’s pushing for a longer extension to give the UK time to “rethink” its position. But there’s no real indication yet that others in Brussels want to drag out Brexit much longer, and a delay without a clear objective only adds to the uncertainty around the UK-EU divorce.
EU leaders will likely make their final decision at the European Council summit starting March 21, which is almost certainly why May is seeking a third deal vote on March 20.
“At this point, it’s hard to see an endgame that doesn’t involve an extension of time, which will likely be agreed upon by both sides,” Spencer Boyer, a fellow at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, told me in an email earlier this week.
A delay avoids the immediate catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit on March 29, but it still doesn’t solve the UK’s Brexit deadlock. But how May and the EU react to Thursday’s vote will offer some clues as to what’s next.
For now, the Brexit deadline, just 15 days away, still stands.
The Israeli army has said at least two rockets were fired towards Israel, triggering rocket sirens in the Tel Aviv area on Thursday.
The Israeli military said its Iron Dome missile defence system intercepted one of the rockets, while another landed in an open area, Israeli daily Haaretz reported.
Israeli television reported explosions and sirens being heard. An Israeli military spokesman said the incident was under investigation.
Israel’s Channel 10 news, citing anonymous military officials, said the rockets were Iranian-made Fajr rockets, and that there were no reports of injuries.
In Gaza, there was no immediate claim of responsibility.
Al Jazeera’s Harry Fawcett, reporting from West Jerusalem, said the Israeli army confirmed it detected two rockets from Gaza.
“The leadership of Hamas has gone underground, expecting an Israeli retaliation anytime soon,” Fawcett said, adding that some sort of retaliation is “absolutely inevitable”.
“[Israeli] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is already at the defense ministry in Tel Aviv to chair an emergency meeting with senior military figures to map out a response,” Fawcett said.
Sirens were last activated in Tel Aviv two years ago, but it had been a false alarm.
Tel Aviv has not been attacked by rocket or missile fire since 2014, when the Israeli army launched an assault on the besieged Gaza Strip, which is administrated by Hamas.
Cross-border violence has increased in recent days with Israel’s military saying it carried out air raids on a compound belonging to Hamas after explosives attached to balloons were launched from the coastal enclave towards Israel.
Last week, Israeli forces shot dead a Palestinian man and wounded more than 40 as thousands protested near the Gaza Strip’s perimeter fence.
Palestinians have staged weekly protests near the border with Israel as part of the Great March of Return protests.
According to the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, 267 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip since March 30 last year.
Most of the Palestinians killed during the demonstrations were shot in weekly clashes, but some have been hit by Israeli tank fire or air raids.
Israel has accused Hamas of using the demonstrations as cover for infiltrations and attacks, but rights groups and Palestinians say the protesters have posed little threat.
Thursday’s incident comes weeks before Israel prepares to hold parliamentary elections on April 9.
The scheme, which began in 2011, centered on the owner of a for-profit Newport Beach college admissions company that wealthy parents paid to help their children cheat on college entrance exams and to falsify athletic records of students to enable them to secure admission to elite schools, including UCLA, USC, Stanford, Yale and Georgetown, according to court records.
Mr. Cruz initiated the meeting, in hopes of selling Mr. Trump on his own rewrite of the emergency declaration law that would restrict funding from military sources, according to a senior Republican aide with direct knowledge of the proposal. Mr. Trump summoned a lawyer from the White House Counsel’s Office, who said the plan would strip the president of powers he currently possesses. “No way,” an annoyed Mr. Trump told the trio, according to a person with knowledge of the exchange.
“I said there’s some people want to talk to you, they have some concerns about the emergency declaration,” Mr. Graham said. “Hell, if I was him, I would have told us to go to hell.”
All three men sided with Mr. Trump and voted against the resolution.
Mr. Graham, along with other lawmakers supportive of the declaration, argued that the president’s declaration was within the jurisdiction of the National Emergencies Act, and was needed to address what the president and his supporters deem to be a crisis at the southwestern border.
“I take Congress’s prerogative over appropriations extremely seriously,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader. “But,” he added, “the Senate should not be in the business of misusing specific resolutions to express opinions on more general matters.” Mr. Trump, at Mar-a-Lago, told an associate that he felt let down by lackluster support for him among Republican leadership.
Mr. McConnell, who strongly advised Mr. Trump against declaring the emergency declaration, made a point of not pressuring senators to support Mr. Trump, urging them to vote according to their consciences and political interests, according to seven Republican aides and lawmakers.
At a party lunch in early March, the leader canvassed his conference and found virtually no support for the president’s position — then he informed senators running for re-election that they were free to vote “the politics” if they chose, according to a person in attendance.
He also repeatedly told senators that he had warned against Mr. Trump against enacting the emergency declaration in the first place.
Most Conservative MPs voted against delaying Brexit – including seven cabinet members – meaning Mrs May had to rely on Labour and other opposition votes to get it through.
Theresa May has long insisted that the UK will leave the EU on 29 March with or without a withdrawal deal.
But she was forced to offer MPs a vote on delaying Brexit after they rejected her withdrawal agreement by a large margin, for a second time, and then voted to reject a no-deal Brexit.
She has warned that extending the departure date beyond three months could harm trust in democracy – and mean that the UK would have to take part in May’s European Parliament elections.
Downing Street said the government was still preparing for a no-deal Brexit.
Theresa May is planning to hold another “meaningful vote” on her withdrawal deal on Wednesday – after it was overwhelmingly rejected on two previous occasions.
She then plans go to an EU summit the following day, where she would ask for a one-off extension to get the necessary legislation through Parliament.
A spokesman for the European Commission said extending Article 50, the mechanism taking the UK out of the EU on 29 March, would need the “unanimous agreement” of all EU member states.
And it would be for the leaders of those states “to consider such a request, giving priority to the need to ensure the functioning of the EU institutions and taking into account the reasons for and duration of a possible extension”.
Well… a clear win that means it’s v unlikely No 10 will be able to stick to promise they have long made that we’ll leave the EU at the end of this month – BUT….
Several cabinet ministers voted a different way to the Prime Minister, – Fox, Williamson and Barclay it’s suggested, even tho the voting lists aren’t out yet, AND loads of the whips office too!
Some ministers said it was still possible for the UK to leave on 29 March – and others voted against a delay.
Downing Street said this was a “natural consequence” of Mrs May’s decision to offer a free vote on an issue where there are “strong views on all sides of the debate”.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss tweeted: “I voted against a delay to Brexit. As a delay was passed by Parliament, I want to see deal agreed ASAP so we can minimise to short, technical, extension.”
Seven cabinet ministers – Ms Truss, Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt, Commons leader Andrea Leadsom, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling and Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson – voted against the government motion.
Health Secretary Matthew Hancock said it would be “extremely difficult” but “still possible to deliver Brexit on 29 March with a deal”.
He said there were now two options: “to vote for the deal and leave in orderly way or a long delay and I think that would be a disaster.”
MPs earlier rejected an attempt to secure another Brexit referendum by 334 votes to 85.
And they also rejected a cross-party plan, to allow MPs to take control of the Brexit process to hold a series of votes on the next steps, by the narrow margin of two votes.
Following the votes, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn reiterated his support for a further referendum after earlier ordering his MPs not to vote for one.
He said: “Today I reiterate my conviction that a deal can be agreed based on our alternative plan that can command support across the House.
“I also reiterate our support for a People’s Vote – not as a political point-scoring exercise but as a realistic option to break the deadlock.”
Labour abstained when MPs voted on the referendum proposal, tabled by Independent Group MP Sarah Wollaston, arguing that now was not the right time to push for a public vote.
Labour’s plan to delay Brexit to allow Parliamentary time for MPs to “find a majority for a different approach” was defeated by 318 to 302 votes.
Southwest Airlines passengers check in at New York’s LaGuardia Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday issued an emergency order grounding Boeing 737 Max jets in the wake of the crash of an Ethiopian airliner.
Richard Drew/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Richard Drew/AP
Southwest Airlines passengers check in at New York’s LaGuardia Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday issued an emergency order grounding Boeing 737 Max jets in the wake of the crash of an Ethiopian airliner.
Richard Drew/AP
Many air travelers are breathing a sigh of relief now that the Federal Aviation Administration has grounded all Boeing 737 Max airplanes after two of the aircraft crashed in recent months, but some airline passengers are finding their flights canceled on Thursday as a result.
The flight-tracking website FlightAware.com shows that more than 2,100 flights nationwide have been canceled for Thursday, but the vast majority of those cancellations are due to the late winter storm moving from the eastern Rockies, through the Great Plains and into the Midwest on Thursday.
The tracking site shows only a handful of flights canceled because they had been scheduled on Boeing 737 Max 8 or Max 9 planes.
An estimated 50,000 travelers could be ticketed on 737 Max planes each day, but those Boeing jets — only 72 — represent a small portion of the overall U.S. passenger airline fleet.
The U.S. airlines that fly the 737 Max planes — Southwest, American and United — will either bring in other planes to fly those routes or rebook passengers on other flights to their destinations.
“I think any disruptions will be very minor,” says Paul Hudson of the travelers’ advocacy group FlyersRights.org.
Southwest, American, United and Air Canada
Southwest Airlines has the most Max 8 planes — 34 — used on about 160 of the airline’s 4,000 daily flights, spread all across the United States. The airline says any customer booked on a canceled Max 8 flight can rebook on alternative flights without any additional fees or fare differences within 14 days of the original date of travel and between the original cities.
American Airlines has 24 Max 8 planes that are used on about 85 of the airline’s 6,700 flights each day. The airline says it will rebook customers to their final destinations or affected customers may rebook themselves on aa.com. “If a flight is canceled,” the airline says, “customers may request a full refund by visiting our website.”
United Airlines has 14 of the nearly identical but slightly longer 737 Max 9 planes, which are used on about 40 flights a day. United says it does not anticipate a significant operational impact — it will swap aircraft and automatically rebook passengers.
Air Canada is one of the few North American carriers expecting some problems because of the grounding of 737 Max planes, telling its passengers to expect some difficulties. “Given the magnitude of our 737 Max operations which on average carry nine to twelve thousand customers per day, customers can expect delays in rebooking and in reaching Air Canada call centres and we appreciate our customers’ patience,” the company said in a statement.
FAA under fire for delay
Air travelers’ advocates had been critical of the FAA for not acting quickly to ground the troubled planes. On Monday, Hudson, president of FlyersRights.org, told NPR that he believed the FAA was taking a big risk: “The FAA’s wait-and-see attitude risks lives,” he said.
Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, of the Obama administration, was among those urging the FAA to ground Boeing’s 737 Max planes.
“I think the flying public has questions about whether these planes are safe,” LaHood told member station WBEZ in Chicago on Wednesday, before the FAA’s announcement. “And the way to really eliminate those concerns is to ground the planes.”
Among those welcoming the peace of mind that came with the FAA’s decision was traveler Sharon Barnes, who was passing through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
“I think it was the right decision, given that the rest of the world is doing the same thing,” Barnes told The Associated Press. “And it’s a prudent thing to be doing until we know more about what’s going on,” she said.
Rafael Nendel-Flores was in midair on that same flight from Los Angeles to D.C., listening to MSNBC. “That’s when I realized the plane I was on was being grounded,” said Nendel-Flores. He said he was more concerned about how he would get back home than he was about his safety.
“We’re supposed to be on a 737 going back on Friday. That is my oldest daughter’s birthday, so I’m like, am I going to miss that?” Nendel-Flores said.
If any travelers are having trouble with an airline over a canceled Boeing 737 Max flight, the travel consumer group FlyersRights.org has the following recommendations:
Ask for your ticket to be endorsed to be used on another flight or airline going to the same destination.
Demand an involuntary refund, and book another flight or cancel your air travel.
Wait for another flight on the same airline and possibly receive hotel, meal and ground-travel vouchers.
Connecticut’s highest court has cleared the way for families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to sue over the marketing of the semiautomatic rifle Adam Lanza used to kill.
The families argued that the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the weapon negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle.
The lawsuit, which lists Bushmaster Firearms International as the defendant, has already overcome years worth of legal hurdles after first being filed more than four years ago, more than two years after the shooting at the Connecticut school left 26 people dead.
The families released a statement saying that they are “grateful that our state’s Supreme Court has rejected the gun industry’s bid for complete immunity, not only from the consequences of their reckless conduct but also from the truth-seeking discovery process,” said attorney Josh Koskoff of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder.
“The families’ goal has always been to shed light on Remington’s calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans’ safety. Today’s decision is a critical step toward achieving that goal,” Koskoff said in the statement, referencing Remington Outdoor Company which owns Bushmaster.
Jessica Hill/AP, FILE
A Connecticut State Police officer holds up a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle, the same make and model of gun used by Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook School shooting at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, Conn., Jan. 28, 2013.
The lawsuit, which was filed in 2015, was dismissed in 2016 by a lower court, ruling that gunmakers have broad immunity from liability under a federal law known as PLCAA, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The case was then moved up to the state’s highest court, and the decision to move forward was issued Thursday.
At a November 2017 hearing, Koskoff argued that the company targeted people like the Sandy Hook shooter with their marketing, using “images of soldiers in combat” and referring to “missions” where the guns could be used.
Joshua Roberts/Reuters, FILE
AR-15 rifles are displayed for sale at the Guntoberfest gun show in Oaks, Pa., Oct. 6, 2017.
“Remington may never have known Adam Lanza but they had been courting him for years,” Koskoff said in that 2017 hearing.
Defense attorney James Vogts conceded at that same hearing that “what happened in the school that morning was horrific.”
But, Vogts quickly added, “the law needs to be applied dispassionately. The manufacturer and the sellers of the firearm used that day are not legally responsible for his crimes and harms that he caused.”
ABC News’ Meghan Keneally and Emily Shapiro contributed to this report.
Thousands of Palestinians gather along the border with Israel, throwing IEDs and grenades at Israeli sharpshooters; Trey Yingst reports from the scene.
Two rockets were fired at the Israeli city of Tel Aviv Thursday night, triggering air raid warning sirens, the country’s military said.
Sources told Fox News one of the rockets was intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. People living in the area reported hearing an explosion in addition to the sirens.
The Israel Defense Forces confirmed in a Hebrew-language tweet that two rockets were fired into Israeli territory from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
Israel’s Channel 10 news, citing anonymous military officials, said the rockets were Iranian-made Fajr rockets. It said one of the rockets were intercepted and the other landed in an uninhabited area, and that there were no reports of injuries.
Tel Aviv has not been attacked by rocket or missile fire since a 2014 war with Hamas militants. There was no immediate claim of responsibility Thursday night.
Earlier Thursday, Hamas forces dispersed hundreds of Palestinians protesting dire living conditions in the territory, which has been blockaded by Israel and Egypt since the militant group took power in 2007.
Videos circulated on social media showed police firing live rounds in the air, beating protesters and hauling them into police vehicles. Hamas says it is restoring order after demonstrators burned tires and blocked roads.
Rights groups say Hamas arrested a dozen activists this week who were organizing the rally under the slogan: “We want to live.” The protests were centered in the northern Jebaliya refugee camp, with smaller gatherings across the territory.
In addition to Hamas, the Gaza Strip is home to other militant groups, including Islamic Jihad, an Iranian-backed armed organization that also has a formidable rocket arsenal. Last month, the group boasted on Iranian television that Tehran had helped it develop a new missile capable of striking Tel Aviv, Israel’s second-most populous city.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted unanimously Thursday for a resolution calling for any final report in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation to be made public, a symbolic action designed to pressure Attorney General William Barr into releasing as much information as possible when the probe is concluded.
The Democratic-backed resolution, which passed 420-0, comes as Mueller is nearing an end to his investigation. Lawmakers in both parties have maintained there will have to be some sort of public resolution when the report is done — and privately hope that a report shows conclusions that are favorable to their own side.
Four Republicans voted present: Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.
Up Next
See Gallery
The nonbinding resolution calls for the public release of any report Mueller provides to Barr, with an exception for classified material. The resolution also calls for the full report to be released to Congress.
“This resolution is critical because of the many questions and criticisms of the investigation raised by the president and his administration,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. “It is important that Congress stand up for the principle of full transparency.”
It’s unclear exactly what documentation will be produced at the end of the probe into possible coordination between Trump associates and Russia, and how much of that the Justice Department will allow people to see. Mueller is required to submit a report to Barr, and then Barr can decide how much of that is released publicly.
Barr said at his confirmation hearing in January that he takes seriously the department regulations that say Mueller’s report should be confidential. Those regulations require only that the report explain the decisions to pursue or to decline prosecutions, which could be as simple as a bullet point list or as fulsome as a report running hundreds of pages.
“I don’t know what, at the end of the day, what will be releasable. I don’t know what Bob Mueller is writing,” Barr said at the hearing.
The top Republican on the Judiciary panel, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, said the vote on the resolution was unnecessary but that he would support it anyway. He said he has no reason to believe that Barr won’t follow the regulations.
But Democrats have said they are unsatisfied with Barr’s answers and want a stronger commitment to releasing the full report, along with interview transcripts and other underlying evidence.
In introducing the resolution, Nadler and five other Democratic committee chairs said “the public is clearly served by transparency with respect to any investigation that could implicate or exonerate the president and his campaign.”
Texas Rep. Will Hurd, a GOP member of the House intelligence committee, said before the vote that he believes the resolution should have been even broader to include the release of underlying evidence.
“I want the American people to know as much as they can and see as much as they can,” said Hurd, a former CIA officer. He added that “full transparency is the only way to prevent future innuendo.”
If a full report isn’t released, House Democrats have made it clear they will do whatever they can to get hold of it. Nadler has said he would subpoena the final report and invite — or even subpoena — Mueller to talk about it.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been less eager to push Barr on the release of the report, despite some in his caucus who have said they want to ensure transparency.
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa introduced legislation with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut that would require Mueller to submit a detailed report to lawmakers and the public at the end of the investigation. But both McConnell and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, have declined to say whether they would support the legislation.
Graham said he agrees “with the concept of transparency,” but stopped short of supporting Grassley’s bill, saying he disagrees with taking discretion away from the attorney general.
On Thursday, Beto O’Rourke urged supporters to join him in the “greatest campaign this country has ever seen.” | Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for SXSW
A hometown showdown with Donald Trump over immigration was the confirmation O’Rourke needed.
Beto O’Rourke was fading. Weary from a bruising Senate campaign and unsure about his future, the former Texas congressman left his home in January for a road trip through the American Southwest, brooding about falling into and out of a “funk” while irritated donors’ and activists’ calls went unreturned.
By early February, he had begun to slip in presidential polls.
Story Continued Below
But O’Rourke, who announced his candidacy for president on Thursday, would soon regain his footing, seizing a stroke of uncommonly good timing to reintroduce himself to Americans as a serious contender. First a government shutdown re-focused public attention on President Donald Trump’s proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall — a major issue to Democratic voters and a signature concern of O’Rourke’s. Then Trump flew to El Paso to rally support for the wall, all but daring O’Rourke to confront him in his home town.
The result — a protest rally that drew thousands of supporters — confirmed to O’Rourke the durability of his appeal to Democrats beyond the 2018 Senate campaign. It offered the border-state politician a rationale for a campaign focused heavily on immigration. And it marked a turning point in O’Rourke’s deliberations about a run for president.
Privately, O’Rourke’s advisers were struck by the tenor of the crowd at his rally. The chants and placards were less about opposing Trump than encouraging to O’Rourke to run for president. And the candidate himself began to overcome concerns about the demands a campaign would place on his family. He had begun to gain back weight he had lost during the Senate campaign, and according to several people close to O’Rourke, he received encouragement from family members who had previously expressed reservations.
In the weeks following the February rally, O’Rourke spoke personally with prospective staffers about the shape of a 2020 run in early primary states, and he dusted off his massive email list, sending out updates on his events and surveys typical of a presidential campaign.
Then, in recent days, O’Rourke began plotting a trip to Iowa to coincide with his announcement. While O’Rourke began calling high-profile figures in the first-in-the-nation caucus state ahead of his visit today, he dispatched intermediaries to seek meetings with labor and Latino leaders, two sources familiar with O’Rourke’s conversations told POLITICO. By late Wednesday, the campaign had alerted top O’Rourke supporters to prepare to text or email their own donor networks links to contribute to the campaign once he announced.
On Thursday, O’Rourke urged supporters to join him in the “greatest campaign this country has ever seen.”
“We are truly now more than ever the last great hope of earth,” he said in a video posted on social media. “At this moment of maximum peril, and maximum potential, let’s show ourselves and those who will succeed us in this great country just who we are and what we can do.”
O’Rourke, a former El Paso councilman and three-term congressman is, at 46, less experienced than many of his Democratic competitors. And there is little historical precedent for him to draw on. While Abraham Lincoln ran for president successfully after two failed Senate campaigns, the last person to go from the House to the presidency was James Garfield in 1880.
During O’Rourke’s Senate race last year, Trump called him a “total lightweight,” and a former campaign assistant, Joey Torres, said O’Rourke himself once questioned the potential of a failed Senate candidate in a presidential campaign. While O’Rourke was running for his House seat in 2012 – and following the Republican presidential primary in the media that year – Torres recalled to POLITICO O’Rourke telling him of then-Sen. Rick Santorum, “You know, you can never become president coming off of a loss.”
Still, O’Rourke’s fundraising capacity and public polling suggests he will enter the 2020 primary in the top tier of contenders. Some Democratic donors, staffers and activists had refused to commit to other candidates while they awaited word of O’Rourke’s plans. “Draft Beto” campaigns sprang up in early nominating states, and advisers to rival Democrats privately fretted about the potent list of small-dollar donors that O’Rourke used to raise $80 million in his Senate campaign.
“This is why I think Beto is a major player, because of his fundraising ability, because of his message, and he is immediately a top-tier candidate in my view,” former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who ran for president in 2008, said recently. “The stars really are aligned for him.”
Yet O’Rourke will enter the race at an organizational disadvantage to his more established rivals. His candidacy will immediately test the limits of a relatively inexperienced politician who has only run for office as an insurgent, not as a favorite, and who, despite his broad appeal, has at times befuddled the Democratic Party establishment and angered the most progressive edge of the Democratic Party’s base.
In his Senate run against Ted Cruz, a Republican universally reviled by Democrats, O’Rourke enjoyed near-unfaltering support from within his own party. But as he began mulling a presidential run, O’Rourke came in for intensifying criticism from within his party’s ranks – with progressives vilifying him for his membership in the centrist New Democrat Coalition and for his acceptance of campaign money from oil industry employees, among other issues.
O’Rourke’s advisers have dismissed such lines of criticism, after a Senate campaign in which O’Rourke was chiefly faulted for being too progressive in a heavily Republican state. Nevertheless, as other Democratic presidential contenders court the party’s leftward-tilting base, O’Rourke has suggested that he will likely attempt to position himself as a less ideological – and more unifying – figure.
Asked in December if he is a progressive Democrat, O’Rourke told reporters, “I don’t know. I’m just, as you may have seen and heard over the course of the campaign, I’m not big on labels. I don’t get all fired up about party or classifying or defining people based on a label or a group. I’m for everyone.”
O’Rourke said during the Senate race last year that he would not run for president in 2020. But he changed his mind soon after the election. Even though O’Rourke and his wife, Amy, said they worried about the toll a presidential campaign would take on their three young children, few people close to O’Rourke believed he would not run.
Now O’Rourke will be tested in his appeal to progressive voters who did not have other high-profile Democrats to choose from in his run against Cruz. And he will have to persuade many skeptical, older Democrats that he has the necessary experience to be president.
“I’m a little frightened by all these new, young Congress people and their audacity,” said George Appleby, a Des Moines-based attorney who has long been active in presidential campaigns in Iowa. “It seems to me we live in a really dangerous world.”
In the run-up to his announcement, O’Rourke has at times struck a lofty, traditionally presidential tone. In January, he said his decision would hinge on whether he felt he had “satisfied my commitment to this country and our democracy,” and in February, he cast himself as a healing figure in a divided time.
“This is our moment of truth, the most divided point that this country has reached since 1860, a time so highly polarized and partisan that we have a hard time listening to, talking to one another if we are of a different political persuasion,” O’Rourke said at an event in El Paso. On issues ranging from climate change to immigration and foreign wars, he said, “Think about any challenge, even the most existential ones. The only way we will be able to meet them is if this divided country comes together, if our democracy once again works.”
Yet O’Rourke has not always projected such confidence in himself. When he left Texas in January for an unusual, unaccompanied road trip through the Southwest, O’Rourke wrote that he had been “stuck lately … in and out of a funk.”
He wrote, “Maybe if I get moving, on the road, meet people, learn about what’s going on where they live, have some adventure, go where I don’t know and I’m not known, it’ll clear my head, reset, I’ll think new thoughts, break out of the loops I’ve been stuck in.”
The trip – and O’Rourke’s writing – drew some mocking online. But it was praised by former operatives for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. On Twitter, Axelrod wrote that O’Rourke’s “missive from the road may not be the conventional route to a presidential candidacy but, in its humility and connection, it also reflects why so many want him to run.”
Tactically, O’Rourke is expected to embark on a campaign reminiscent, in some ways, of Sanders’ run in 2016. In private conversations with Democratic strategists in recent weeks, O’Rourke’s advisers had begun outlining an operation that would expand on the “distributed organizing” model used by Sanders and replicated by O’Rourke in his Senate campaign, with the campaign training low-level staffers and volunteers to run their own door-knocking, text and email operations.
In Iowa, O’Rourke is being assisted by Norm Sterzenbach, a former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party. Paul Tewes, who ran Obama’s 2008 operation in the state, is also helping O’Rourke. Yet it is unclear if he will hire a pollster, a traditional campaign practice that O’Rourke – to the chagrin of some fellow Democrats – eschewed in 2018.
“I haven’t really gotten to thinking through those kinds of issues,” he told reporters in El Paso following an event in February. “I think any campaign I run … I would want to run in the same way that I’ve run every race – just as grassroots as possible, powered by people, directly connected to the people that I want to serve and represent.”
This is a widget area - If you go to "Appearance" in your WP-Admin you can change the content of this box in "Widgets", or you can remove this box completely under "Theme Options"
Looking for the latest gadgets? Check out our latest 
Want more?